The Atheist Thread

SBSP wrote:What makes religion an invalid reason to vote for something? I'm sure there are people who vote for much stupider reasons.

Have you ever been to the beach?

Bye_Ya wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:Not at all, despite their wacky beliefs I reckon that Ahly and SBSP lead relatively normal lives in the real world. It doesn't make what they believe, and the logical moral conclusions of what they believe, any less wacky though, and it doesn't change the fact that it will inevitably influence their voting behaviour, and influence what they teach their children. I won't stand for that.

I would agree that your true beliefs will inevitably be reflected in how you live your life, but again you are making a blanket statement. You can't say, for example, that they will definitely vote based on their religious beliefs.

I'm most concerned about the bolded part. How far will you go to do something about it? And what are you actually even doing about it now, besides wumming people that have beliefs?

And on what grounds are you correct, as to assume that you should do something about it? Can you prove that God does not exist?

I can say for certain that people do. Who was the last Atheist president of the United States? How many irreligious Senators are there?

I will do everything I can. I do not need to prove that God does not exist, religious people have constructed a system for which it is impossible, if religious people are asserting that a being or thing exists, the burden of proof rests firmly on them.

SBSP wrote:What makes religion an invalid reason to vote for something? I'm sure there are people who vote for much stupider reasons.

I can't think of many more stupid reasons than doing so because of what it says in a book which you believe is infallible, despite it containing demonstrable falsehoods.

ahlycotc wrote:

SBSP wrote:What makes religion an invalid reason to vote for something? I'm sure there are people who vote for much stupider reasons.

Have you ever been to the beach?

Yes.

How come the sea didn't evaporate when the sun sank into it?

SBSP wrote:

ahlycotc wrote:

Have you ever been to the beach?

Yes.

Have you been there during a sunset? Would you describe the sun as setting in the ocean/sea?

ResurrectionRooney wrote:How come the sea didn't evaporate when the sun sank into it?

How come you're taking everything literally?

SBSP wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:How come the sea didn't evaporate when the sun sank into it?

How come you're taking everything literally?

Because it suits his needs. :duh:

SBSP wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:How come the sea didn't evaporate when the sun sank into it?

How come you're taking everything literally?

This book is supposedly infallible. Why would it say one thing when it means another?

Critics of this verse should be aware that the Qur’an is not descriptive prose, and the words of the Qur’an is of high poetical eloquence, something which the Bible is not able to claim. Since the beauty of the Qur’an is in its poetical nature, therefore it is only natural that the Qur’an uses emphatic expressions to describe something like a “sunset”. Keep in mind that the Qur’an is in poetical prose and is meant to be a challenge to the pagan Arabs in Mecca who prided themselves as writers of good poetry. Those neophytes who like to use this verse as a stick to beat Islam with should try to study the Arabian Literature and History of that period before coming up with silly conclusions.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:I can say for certain that people do. Who was the last Atheist president of the United States? How many irreligious Senators are there?

I will do everything I can. I do not need to prove that God does not exist, religious people have constructed a system for which it is impossible, if religious people are asserting that a being or thing exists, the burden of proof rests firmly on them.

Right, SOME people vote based on their religious beliefs, not all. You can't throw all religious people into the same boat. If you're trying to prove anything, you've just ignored more variables, another incompetent presumption, etc.

Atheist president? You do realize that we are talking about politics? It's politically advantageous to say that you are religious even if you are not. That statement doesn't prove anything regardless because you can't say for certain what any politician's true beliefs are.


And religious people aside, how can you say that God can't exist? Honestly, it has nothing to do with religious people, and everything to do with what we know of reality, yes even the scientific method. But I would like to know how you personally, know that there cannot be a God?

Someone should ask Ahly why he hasn't addressed Polska's questions

http://www.the-playmaker.com/t2046p180-the-atheist-thread#1006259

Although I suppose the answer to that will be that it's just a poem as well.

Why do you take the book seriously if it is filled with poems that don't mean what they say?

Bye_Ya wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:I can say for certain that people do. Who was the last Atheist president of the United States? How many irreligious Senators are there?

I will do everything I can. I do not need to prove that God does not exist, religious people have constructed a system for which it is impossible, if religious people are asserting that a being or thing exists, the burden of proof rests firmly on them.

Right, SOME people vote based on their religious beliefs, not all. You can't throw all religious people into the same boat. If you're trying to prove anything, you've just ignored more variables, another incompetent presumption, etc.

Atheist president? You do realize that we are talking about politics? It's politically advantageous to say that you are religious even if you are not. That statement doesn't prove anything regardless because you can't say for certain what any politician's true beliefs are.


And religious people aside, how can you say that God can't exist? Honestly, it has nothing to do with religious people, and everything to do with what we know of reality, yes even the scientific method. But I would like to know how you personally, know that there cannot be a God?

I'm not saying all people do.

Why is it politically advantageous to say you are religious even if you are not? Because a lot of people vote with religion being a massive factor in it.

I don't say that God can't exist, I would never claim that.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:Someone should ask Ahly why he hasn't addressed Polska's questions

http://www.the-playmaker.com/t2046p180-the-atheist-thread#1006259

Although I suppose the answer to that will be that it's just a poem as well.

Why do you take the book seriously if it is filled with poems that don't mean what they say?

It does mean what it says. You're just being pedantic and looking for anything that'll support your claim.

SBSP wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:Someone should ask Ahly why he hasn't addressed Polska's questions

http://www.the-playmaker.com/t2046p180-the-atheist-thread#1006259

Although I suppose the answer to that will be that it's just a poem as well.

Why do you take the book seriously if it is filled with poems that don't mean what they say?

It does mean what it says. You're just being pedantic and looking for anything that'll support your claim.

I'm sorry you feel that way, but a piece of work which claims to be infallible should stand up to any level of scrutiny, any level of pedantry.

ahlycotc wrote:I saw the questions, Polska. I will not answer them because it's a waste of my time talking to someone who has no genuine interest in accepting my beliefs. Unlike RR, you aren't a troll in everything so I'm not going to put you on ignore.

RR, You should read more. You ignore so much but i shouldn't be surprised, you are a troll.

We should all bow down to RR. He is obviously so knowledge because he understands Classical Arabic and knows all the story/history behind every verse and chapter in the Quran.

Just like you spend 30 seconds finding verses through Google, why don't you spend that same amount of time finding the response to such claims by Muslims. You don't need me to answer your ridiculous questions on here. There are much better answers out there on the internet. Or maybe you can actually read the whole Quran yourself. Let me provide you the link that you may have missed yesterday.

http://www.islamicstudies.info/tafheem.php?sura=1

This not only provides translation for the Quran, but provides annotations on the bottom.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:I'm not saying all people do.

Why is it politically advantageous to say you are religious even if you are not? Because a lot of people vote with religion being a massive factor in it.

I don't say that God can't exist, I would never claim that.

For such arrogance and supposed intellect, you really haven't proposed anything that has any substance.

It's politically advantageous because it's simply a fact that in America for example, the majority of the population have some sort of Christian-based belief. An outspoken atheist or Satanist president would never be elected. American politics are as much of a game as they are an issue concerning serious legislative matters.

And if you would never claim that God doesn't/can't exist, why then would you "not allow it to happen" that people would teach their children to live lives with a reverence for a godly deity?

NZG wrote:

ahlycotc wrote:I saw the questions, Polska. I will not answer them because it's a waste of my time talking to someone who has no genuine interest in accepting my beliefs. Unlike RR, you aren't a troll in everything so I'm not going to put you on ignore.

RR, You should read more. You ignore so much but i shouldn't be surprised, you are a troll.

That answer is unsatisfactory. I do not troll when it comes to religion, if I did not believe every word I was saying, if I believed that God actually existed, and the Koran/Bible was true, I would certainly not say anything like what I am saying here.

ahlycotc wrote:We should all bow down to RR. He is obviously so knowledge because he understands Classical Arabic and knows all the story/history behind every verse and chapter in the Quran.

Just like you spend 30 seconds finding verses through Google, why don't you spend that same amount of time finding the response to such claims by Muslims. You don't need me to answer your ridiculous questions on here. There are much better answers out there on the internet. Or maybe you can actually read the whole Quran yourself. Let me provide you the link that you may have missed yesterday.

http://www.islamicstudies.info/tafheem.php?sura=1

This not only provides translation for the Quran, but provides annotations on the bottom.

I don't claim to understand Classical Arabic, and I don't claim to know all the story behind chapter and verse in the Koran. There are some areas of it which seems extremely contradictory, absurd, or demonstrably false, that's why I am asking you.

I don't want an answer from some biased prick on another website who has had years to construct arguments, I want answers from YOU, about YOUR beliefs, not answers out of a textbook, and if you can't justify them, I want to know why you keep peddling this shit about the Koran being infallible.

Bye_Ya wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:I'm not saying all people do.

Why is it politically advantageous to say you are religious even if you are not? Because a lot of people vote with religion being a massive factor in it.

I don't say that God can't exist, I would never claim that.

For such arrogance and supposed intellect, you really haven't proposed anything that has any substance.

It's politically advantageous because it's simply a fact that in America for example, the majority of the population have some sort of Christian-based belief. An outspoken atheist or Satanist president would never be elected. American politics are as much of a game as they are an issue concerning serious legislative matters.

And if you would never claim that God doesn't/can't exist, why then would you "not allow it to happen" that people would teach their children to live lives with a reverence for a godly deity?

Exactly! The reason than an atheist could never be elected is that religious people spread religion to their easily influenced children, who then grow up taking it almost as a certainty, and passing it onto their children, and so on. Can't you see how wrong that is?

Same reason I wouldn't stand for people teaching their kids that the flying spaghetti monster is real.

Seriously RR, just read that link I provided you. It translates the Quran in simple to understand English. If you have a question about the meaning of one of the verses, it most likely will be answered by an annotation at the bottom of the page. If you have read the translation and the annotation and still have a genuine question, I will try to answer you.

But please take the effort to read first before coming to me. I'm really wasting my time answering you.

I want you to answer the questions that I asked and that Polska requoted.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:I want you to answer the questions that I asked and that Polska requoted.

I can't answer it because it's a silly question. You are asking why God choose to describe stars as lamps rather than balls of fire? What difference does it make?

Bye_Ya wrote:But back then there were non-Christian scientists that believed the world was flat. It was just as much of a scientific belief as it was a religious rule, or whatever. You can't say that non-Christian scientists who believed the world was flat did so because of religion.

What RR said:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:But if these books really were divinely inspired by an omniscient God, surely they would not say that the world was flat.

Plus their(christrians) beliefs were religiously motivated. Not scientifically motivated.

Of course those books only claimed such because people back then did think the world was flat, but isn't that just proof that these books were made by ordinary people and no omnipotent beings?

Likewise with the two questions RR posed earlier.

polska. wrote:

Bye_Ya wrote:But back then there were non-Christian scientists that believed the world was flat. It was just as much of a scientific belief as it was a religious rule, or whatever. You can't say that non-Christian scientists who believed the world was flat did so because of religion.

What RR said:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:But if these books really were divinely inspired by an omniscient God, surely they would not say that the world was flat.

Plus their(christrians) beliefs were religiously motivated. Not scientifically motivated.

Of course those books only claimed such because people back then did think the world was flat, but isn't that just proof that these books were made by ordinary people and no omnipotent beings?

Likewise with the two questions RR posed earlier.

I'm not sure if you followed, Polska. But based on the discussion, do you honestly believe those verses in the Quran were saying that the Earth is flat and that the Sun revolves around the Earth? Be honest, RR won't bite.

ahlycotc wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:I want you to answer the questions that I asked and that Polska requoted.

I can't answer it because it's a silly question. You are asking why God choose to describe stars as lamps rather than balls of fire? What difference does it make?

One is true, one is false. They are both equally difficult or easy for uneducated people to understand as well, lamps floating in the air or great balls of fire far away.

Equally with mountains, it is claimed that they are there to prevent earthquakes. Great plates of land moving together, that would be equally absurd sounding to uneducated people with no scientific knowledge, except it would actually be true, whereas the line about mountains preventing earthquakes, that has no basis in reality.

ahlycotc wrote:I'm not sure if you followed, Polska. But based on the discussion, do you honestly believe those verses in the Quran were saying that the Earth is flat and that the Sun revolves around the Earth? Be honest, RR won't bite.

Do you think they weren't? Putting aside the fact that I know it isn't true and I have knowledge of what really happens when the Sun sets, I'd say that's exactly what the verses are saying. That the Sun rises over a flat earth in the east and then sinks into the ground in the west, before rising up again. Why would you take it to mean anything else?

ResurrectionRooney wrote:Exactly! The reason than an atheist could never be elected is that religious people spread religion to their easily influenced children, who then grow up taking it almost as a certainty, and passing it onto their children, and so on. Can't you see how wrong that is?

Same reason I wouldn't stand for people teaching their kids that the flying spaghetti monster is real.

Another fairly incorrect and specific assumption.

They wouldn't be elected because that belief is in the minority, and politicians are elected by winning over the majority of the vote. It's not about atheism being right or wrong here, it's about it not being the popular vote.

This is where you redirect the argument and proceed to tell me why it is not the popular vote...

ahlycotc wrote:

polska. wrote:What RR said:



Plus their(christrians) beliefs were religiously motivated. Not scientifically motivated.

Of course those books only claimed such because people back then did think the world was flat, but isn't that just proof that these books were made by ordinary people and no omnipotent beings?

Likewise with the two questions RR posed earlier.

I'm not sure if you followed, Polska. But based on the discussion, do you honestly believe those verses in the Quran were saying that the Earth is flat and that the Sun revolves around the Earth? Be honest, RR won't bite.

I don't know. I haven't looked at the Quran as it's a major waste of any time, no matter how insignificant. Kind of like reading a childrens book. (probably how the stories in the Quran and Bible started )

But I am talking about Christianity and the Bible. Your beliefs are insignificant as you think Christianity and the Bible is baloney anyway.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

ahlycotc wrote:

I can't answer it because it's a silly question. You are asking why God choose to describe stars as lamps rather than balls of fire? What difference does it make?

One is true, one is false. They are both equally difficult or easy for uneducated people to understand as well, lamps floating in the air or great balls of fire far away.

Equally with mountains, it is claimed that they are there to prevent earthquakes. Great plates of land moving together, that would be equally absurd sounding to uneducated people with no scientific knowledge, except it would actually be true, whereas the line about mountains preventing earthquakes, that has no basis in reality.

How is using language to describe stars as lamps false? English/Literature was clearly not one of your strong subjects.